> On Mar 10, 2022, at 6:59 PM, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:04:05PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:08 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:32:43AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to propose a discussion about the workflow of the stable trees >>>>>> when it comes to fs/ and mm/. In the past year we had some friction with >>>>>> regards to the policies and the procedures around picking patches for >>>>>> stable tree, and I feel it would be very useful to establish better flow >>>>>> with the folks who might be attending LSF/MM. > > I would like to participate in this as well - it is very important > that we improve > test automation processes. We run a series of tests, hosted with VMs in Azure > (mostly xfstests but also the git fs regression tests and various ones > that are fs specific > for testing various scenarios like reconnect and various fs specific > mount options) > regularly (on every pull request sent upstream to mainline) for cifs.ko and > also for the kernel server (ksmbd.ko) as well. > > This does leave a big gap for stable although Redhat and SuSE seem to > run a similar set of regression tests so not much risk for the distros. > > In theory we could periodically run the cifs/smb3.1.1 automated tests > against stable, > perhaps every few weeks and send results somewhere if there was a process > for this for the various fs - but the tests we run were pretty clearly listed > (and also in the wiki.samba.org) so may be easier ways to do this. Tests could > be run locally on the same machine to ksmbd from cifs.ko (or to Samba if > preferred) so nothing extra to setup. > > Would be worth discussing the best process for automating something like > this - others may have figured out tricks that could help all fs in this > xfstest automation It deserves mention that network file systems like Steve's and mine have a slightly heavier lift because two systems at a time are needed to test with -- client and server. I've found that requires more infrastructure around Jenkins or whatever framework you like to drive testing. Having a discussion about that and comparing notes about how this particular issue can be resolved would be of interest to me. >>>>>> I feel that fs/ and mm/ are in very different places with regards to >>>>>> which patches go in -stable, what tests are expected, and the timeline >>>>>> of patches from the point they are proposed on a mailing list to the >>>>>> point they are released in a stable tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose >>>>>> two different sessions on this (one for fs/ and one for mm/), as a >>>>>> common session might be less conductive to agreeing on a path forward as >>>>>> the starting point for both subsystems are somewhat different. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can go through the existing processes, automation, and testing >>>>>> mechanisms we employ when building stable trees, and see how we can >>>>>> improve these to address the concerns of fs/ and mm/ folks. > > >>>>> Hi Sasha, >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be interesting to have another discussion on the state of fs/ >>>>> in -stable and see if things have changed over the past couple of years. > > > -- > Thanks, > > Steve -- Chuck Lever
